Social media bans aren't the fix young minds need: here's what is

A debate that misses the point

Australia has already barred under-16s from the major platforms, and a string of European governments are weighing similar laws. The question is now being debated in Malta too, with commentators arguing, rightly in my view, that banning children is a way to look tough on technology companies without addressing what actually causes harm online.

The instinct is understandable. Parents and teachers are worried, and the research exploring links between heavy social-media use and rising anxiety in adolescents has given them good reason to be. But a ban treats a complex, developmental question as though it were a switch that could simply be turned off.

What actually shapes the experience

The evidence we do have suggests it is rarely the platform alone that determines whether a young person's time online helps or harms. It is the kind of engagement (passive scrolling versus genuine connection) and everything happening around it: sleep, exercise, real-world friendships and the conversations a child feels able to have at home.

One of the more interesting ideas in the current debate is the “spiral of silence”: the tendency to stay quiet when we believe our view is unpopular. Online, where bots and manufactured outrage can make a fringe position look dominant, that silence can feel deeply isolating, and isolation is a genuine risk factor for low mood, not a matter of age alone.

What parents and schools can actually do

Rather than one grand restriction, the approaches with the strongest early support are quieter and more consistent:

• Model the behaviour you want to see: put your own phone down, and talk openly about when you struggle to.
• Protect sleep: keeping screens out of the bedroom is one of the clearest, best-evidenced habits for adolescent mood and concentration.
• Prioritise connection over content: ask who they spoke to and how it felt, not just how long they spent online.
• Keep the door open: a child who can talk to you about what they see online is better protected than one who has simply been cut off from it.

None of this is a substitute for proper help when a young person is genuinely struggling. Our psychology service works with teenagers as well as adults, and where a young person's difficulties are more persistent, a psychiatric assessment can help make sense of what is happening. Technology can support a clinician's judgement (objective measures of attention and mood can help us see what is changing) but it never replaces the conversation at the heart of good care.

It is also worth remembering that sleep and movement are not side issues here. The same habits that protect an adolescent online protect the rest of us too, as Malta's long sitting hours show.

The point that often gets missed

The debate over bans is really a debate about responsibility. A ban places the burden on the child and the parent; the harder work is holding platforms to account for the design choices that keep young people hooked. That is exactly what was at stake in Meta's $17 billion settlement, and it is a far more uncomfortable conversation for the industry than an age limit.

Early signals in the research suggest transparent design and real accountability may do more for adolescent wellbeing than age limits ever could, but the honest answer is that we are still learning.

What we can say with confidence is that wellbeing is built in the small, repeated choices of daily life, not in a single dramatic rule. That is where parents, schools and clinicians can make the most difference.

This article is for general information and does not replace individual psychiatric, psychological or medical assessment. If you are concerned about a young person's mood, sleep or behaviour, please speak to a clinician.